Will Bush Seek to Define "Chattel" as Well?

A friend of mine emailed me Congressman Jim McDermott's remarks on marriage--food for thought:

Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to ``pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.''

With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.

Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.

Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13.

Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3.

Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law.

I'm glad McDermott was able to inject a little bit of humor, and sanity, into this debate.

Remember, all this talk about "defending the family" is little more than hot air from Team Bush. They're so damn desperate to shore up the base that ANY raw meat sound byte will be thrown to their rabble. The idea is to monopolize the sphere of debate with these types of nothing issues (see also: flag burning and/or Willie Horton), thereby stifling real discussion on matters that actually affect the public like the availibility of quality jobs, health care, and education. The only question is whether the media will bleat along to their garbage or not...